RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Tue Dec 18, 2018 12:59 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 5:49 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 14894
Lets hope nobody tells dumb dumb he can do this - What we know is he will do anything and everything to prevent justice on him or his family.

https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-polit ... s-internet



Quote:
Trump can activate an ‘entire parallel legal regime’ — which includes an ‘internet kill switch’


There is a vast set of laws, an entire parallel legal regime, that becomes available to the president when he declares an emergency,” Goitein said, adding that such a declaration is entirely up to the president. “Some of these laws and the powers they give the president are perfectly sensible, but some of them are more like the stuff of authoritarian regimes. We’re talking about powers to shut down wire communications, to freeze Americans’ bank accounts, to deploy the military to act as a domestic police force and more. This is some very frightening stuff.”
Goitein added that “there are very, very few constraints” on Trump’s ability to declare a national emergency, and all it takes is his signature to renew it. There is little to no oversight, she contended.











_________________
"Corporate Democrat" phrase created at the same place "Angry Mob" was...People keep falling for rightwing talking points. How sad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:00 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 11501
I don't go to alternet for legal analysis.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:07 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:41 pm
Posts: 2682
Location: Oregon
But would you listen to the co-director of the Brennan Center for Justice? That's whose analysis this is.

"The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School is a non-partisan law and public policy institute.[2][3][4][5][6] The organization is named after Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan.

The Brennan Center advocates for a number of progressive public policy positions, including raising the minimum wage, opposing voter ID laws, and calling for public funding of elections.[7][8] The organization opposed the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by nonprofits.[6][9]

The Center's stated mission is to "work to hold our political institutions and laws accountable to the twin American ideals of democracy and equal justice for all."[10] The organization's president is Michael Waldman, former director of speechwriting for President Bill Clinton." -Wikipedia

_________________
"When the rich take money from the poor it's called business, when poor people resist it's called violence." –Mark Twain


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:13 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 11501
Not really, for this kind of topic I listen to the top national security lawyers at the Bookings institute's portal, LawFare.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:26 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:41 pm
Posts: 2682
Location: Oregon
Not really, for this kind of topic I listen to the top national security lawyers at the Bookings institute's portal, LawFare.

:) Well let me know when someone from Lawfare weighs in on this topic.

It's an opinion piece, and at least it's not from some known CT site. My worry is that we have the village idiot running the village, and I think the piece deserves further investigation beyond just "oh, I don't read that site."

_________________
"When the rich take money from the poor it's called business, when poor people resist it's called violence." –Mark Twain


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:57 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12757
Location: Sunny South Florida
Her credentials seem not bad.

https://www.brennancenter.org/expert/el ... za-goitein

Co-Director, Liberty & National Security Program
Elizabeth (Liza) Goitein co-directs the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program. Ms. Goitein is the author of the Brennan Center’s report The New Era of Secret Law and co-author of the reports Overseas Surveillance in an Interconnected World, What Went Wrong with the FISA Court, and Reducing Overclassification Through Accountability. She is also the author of the chapter “Overclassification: Its Causes and Consequences” in the book An Enduring Tension: Balancing National Security and Our Access to Information, and co-author of the chapter “Lessons From the History of National Security Surveillance” in the 2017 Cambridge Handbook of Surveillance Law. Her writing has been featured in major newspapers including The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and LA Times, and she has appeared on national television and radio shows including the The Rachel Maddow Show, All In with Chris Hayes, the PBS NewsHour, and National Public Radio’s Morning Edition and All Things Considered. She has testified before the Senate and House Judiciary Committees.

Before coming to the Brennan Center, Ms. Goitein served as counsel to Senator Feingold, Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and as a trial attorney in the Federal Programs Branch of the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. Ms. Goitein graduated from the Yale Law School and clerked for the Honorable Michael Daly Hawkins on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

[snip][end]

I think the fact that something she wrote for the Atlantic, ended up featuring in Alternet, is irrelevant.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 11:21 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 11501
:) Well let me know when someone from Lawfare weighs in on this topic.

It's an opinion piece, and at least it's not from some known CT site. My worry is that we have the village idiot running the village, and I think the piece deserves further investigation beyond just "oh, I don't read that site."


It's an opinion alright, speculative with a flair for media dash. Not the kind of opinion I would regards as a sober legal opinion. Those kinds of opinions don't lead with:

"There is a vast set of laws, an entire parallel legal regime, that becomes available to the president when he declares an emergency.”

:|

If you were to have read from here, a vast array of articles under a loose topic heading of Executive Power you wouldn't be suggesting I let you know when they will weigh in on this. I doubt they will.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/topic/executive-power


As close as I could find was this https://www.lawfareblog.com/unintended- ... -norms-law

It's an article which praises the Brennan Center's work lavishly. But it doesn't project a speculative aura of fear that Trump may not have limits.


I suppose one of them might take time to criticize Ms. Goitein if they happened to be named Benjamin Wittes. :|


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 11:28 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12757
Location: Sunny South Florida
I suppose one of them might take time to criticize Ms. Goitein if they happened to be named Benjamin Wittes. :|


I suppose, could end up becoming an in-house matter, tho ...

She's a regular contributor at Lawfare. :lol:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/contributors/lgoitein

Her last post on Lawfare was May 7th, 2018. :D

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 11:38 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:41 pm
Posts: 2682
Location: Oregon
It's a bit like saying you'd never read anything on Huffpo because Joe Blo, the nazi CT nut wrote an article there. I have nothing against attacking an author if s/he has a record of posting woo woo, but it the site itself posts people from all sorts of political parameters, just pick authors you trust.

_________________
"When the rich take money from the poor it's called business, when poor people resist it's called violence." –Mark Twain


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 11:41 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 11501
ProfessorX wrote:

I suppose, could end up becoming an in-house matter, tho ...

She's a regular contributor at Lawfare. :lol:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/contributors/lgoitein

Her last post on Lawfare was May 7th, 2018. :D


I wouldn't regard two articles early this year, one article last year, and two way back in 2015, as a guest contributor an in house matter, or a regular contributor.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 12:20 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:27 pm
Posts: 8488
Location: miles from nowhere
There are multiple things to consider under such a scenario. Response of law enforcement, response of military, response of courts, response of congress. Yes, yes, the courts especially the SCOTUS and the congress are controlled by Republicans until the Democrats officially take control of the House. That being said I doubt highly that any of the four things I mentioned would stand by while Trump tried to execute a full blown coup.

Just my opinion.

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus

The new motto of the USA: Unum de multis. Out of one, many.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 12:46 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 11501
Yes, none of them would sit still for that.

For instance if the House and Senate really wanted to they could impeach and convict him in one day.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 8:51 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12757
Location: Sunny South Florida
My personal position: I like people that when they make claims, also show their work.

At the Brennan Center website:

A Guide to Emergency Powers and Their Use
https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/emergency-powers

Unknown to most Americans, a vast set of laws gives the president greatly enhanced powers during emergencies. The Brennan Center, building on previous research, has identified 136 statutory powers that may become available to the president upon declaration of a national emergency. The table below displays these powers by subject matter, specifies the conditions triggering their use, and lists the occasions on which they have been invoked. Our top-line observations from this research may be found here, while our methodology for compiling the database is available here. Separately, we have developed a running list of national emergencies declared since the National Emergencies Act went into effect. And we did a deeper dive into some of these powers in the January/February 2019 issue of The Atlantic.

[snip][end]

To me of most interest is the red category. "No restrictions on president's power to invoke in case of national emergency".

I suggest it is insightful to read those powers. This means ... well, it means "no restrictions". No Congress does not need to approve, nor is there any other federal control.

There's a larger issue here, of course. Not just the one of 45 at this present moment, but whether Congress should reconsider allowing ANY POTUS unrestricted powers in the case of national emergency.

Please note, I'm not saying the POTUS shouldn't be able to do certain things quickly in the case of a sudden, extreme event. An invasion of the U.S. ... a massive natural disaster ... etc. ... the question remains whether all of these powers should remain unrestricted. We do know he has the power to launch a nuclear strike and I think what's interesting is nobody seems bothered by the view that he might be able to do so unilaterally without the Sec of Def being required to second the order. (This seems to be another legal argument, but one with consequences. Also, I get that that decision might need to be made with extreme quickness, a few minutes or so, but still.)

I think this is one of the points mentioned in the Atlantic article.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 12:18 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 14894
It's a bit like saying you'd never read anything on Huffpo because Joe Blo, the nazi CT nut wrote an article there. I have nothing against attacking an author if s/he has a record of posting woo woo, but it the site itself posts people from all sorts of political parameters, just pick authors you trust.


It is less about the source in the OP but the author of the OP on this board, ME :rw)

Sam purposely trolls every single thing I do, just about anyway and for that matter not just me.

I dont know what his problem is...something.

_________________
"Corporate Democrat" phrase created at the same place "Angry Mob" was...People keep falling for rightwing talking points. How sad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 12:23 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 11501
Libertas, I consider that activity to be that of a fireman. Stomping out fires in the theater before they climb into the curtains.

:|


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 12:46 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:27 pm
Posts: 8488
Location: miles from nowhere
My personal position: I like people that when they make claims, also show their work.

At the Brennan Center website:

A Guide to Emergency Powers and Their Use
https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/emergency-powers

Unknown to most Americans, a vast set of laws gives the president greatly enhanced powers during emergencies. The Brennan Center, building on previous research, has identified 136 statutory powers that may become available to the president upon declaration of a national emergency. The table below displays these powers by subject matter, specifies the conditions triggering their use, and lists the occasions on which they have been invoked. Our top-line observations from this research may be found here, while our methodology for compiling the database is available here. Separately, we have developed a running list of national emergencies declared since the National Emergencies Act went into effect. And we did a deeper dive into some of these powers in the January/February 2019 issue of The Atlantic.

[snip][end]

To me of most interest is the red category. "No restrictions on president's power to invoke in case of national emergency".

I suggest it is insightful to read those powers. This means ... well, it means "no restrictions". No Congress does not need to approve, nor is there any other federal control.

There's a larger issue here, of course. Not just the one of 45 at this present moment, but whether Congress should reconsider allowing ANY POTUS unrestricted powers in the case of national emergency.

Please note, I'm not saying the POTUS shouldn't be able to do certain things quickly in the case of a sudden, extreme event. An invasion of the U.S. ... a massive natural disaster ... etc. ... the question remains whether all of these powers should remain unrestricted. We do know he has the power to launch a nuclear strike and I think what's interesting is nobody seems bothered by the view that he might be able to do so unilaterally without the Sec of Def being required to second the order. (This seems to be another legal argument, but one with consequences. Also, I get that that decision might need to be made with extreme quickness, a few minutes or so, but still.)

I think this is one of the points mentioned in the Atlantic article.

Yeah, I looked through your link to the Brennan Center. Thanks.

Trump has basically a month to do any of the things listed. The initial premise is faulty because Trump WILL throw his family under the bus. His ego is such that such an action is acceptable. I would include Melania in that as well.

That the statutes state that the president may invoke them I could not find where such invocation was exempt from judicial review.

Imo, such invocations unattached to any real emergency would definitely trigger a constitutional crisis.

We must remember that Trump while being unstable is actually not smart enough nor sufficiently informed enough to invoke, imo, the vast majority of these statutes. We must also remember that the Republican Party is supporting most of what Trump does because it happens to dovetail with their goals. As an example trade agreements implemented by Trump that don't significantly change anything are fine. They offer good optics to a public which is too lazy and/or stupid to dig into them. Actions by Trump which allow the donor class to benefit are acceptable. That being said if Trump is implicated in sufficiently impeachable actions then the party will, covertly, happily throw him overboard. A president Pence would be even more to their liking.

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus

The new motto of the USA: Unum de multis. Out of one, many.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 12:56 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 14894
I am the one who included family, what I really meant was Ivanka. Now, if it comes down to him or her in jail he will send her of course.

_________________
"Corporate Democrat" phrase created at the same place "Angry Mob" was...People keep falling for rightwing talking points. How sad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 1:00 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12757
Location: Sunny South Florida
Imo, such invocations unattached to any real emergency would definitely trigger a constitutional crisis.


Concur. However, Agent Orange is good at turning things into emergencies that aren't. Case in point: a caravan of migrants became a national emergency. Now, you and I both know it wasn't.

He in fact invoked that "national emergency" that wasn't to do something some folks say was unauthorized (see: Posse Comitatus), to send troops to the national border with Mexico.

Yes, it might head to the courts if he does something like this again, they may be forced to rule on what is and is not an actual national emergency. Would seem the only way he could be stopped, at least by the judicial branch.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 1:03 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 14894

Concur. However, Agent Orange is good at turning things into emergencies that aren't. Case in point: a caravan of migrants became a national emergency. Now, you and I both know it wasn't.

He in fact invoked that "national emergency" that wasn't to do something some folks say was unauthorized (see: Posse Comitatus), to send troops to the national border with Mexico.

Yes, it might head to the courts if he does something like this again, they may be forced to rule on what is and is not an actual national emergency. Would seem the only way he could be stopped, at least by the judicial branch.



Is it possible there are still people who do not believe rump will do

anything

a n y t h i n g

a
n
y
t
h
i
n
g


including BOMBING an entire country to save his ass?

_________________
"Corporate Democrat" phrase created at the same place "Angry Mob" was...People keep falling for rightwing talking points. How sad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 1:14 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:27 pm
Posts: 8488
Location: miles from nowhere


Is it possible there are still people who do not believe rump will do

anything

a n y t h i n g

a
n
y
t
h
i
n
g


including BOMBING an entire country to save his ass?

Bombing a country? Yes, I do believe he would try to go to war. The problem lies in it requires an AUMF unless, subject to correction, said country actually poses a direct threat such as imminent invasion. Iran doesn't meet the criteria. Hell, Trump hasn't talked about them in God knows how long. Imo, even Israel would have a problem with Trump bombing Iran because Iran would bomb Israel in response. While Israel could respond easily such an action would start a war which Israel actually might not survive. No, Israel doesn't want that. Occasional air strikes into Iran by Israel are OK in their eyes. Full scale military strikes are something else entirely.

Bombing another country is again subject to congressional oversight which means he has about a month.

Most likely result coming?

In order of likelihood (imo)

1) resignation
2) finishes his term
3) impeachment It will take a smoking gun or so close to a smoking gun that even the Republicans will be offended enough.

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus

The new motto of the USA: Unum de multis. Out of one, many.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 1:18 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 14894
Well, I think if he is TOLD he can, he will bomb.

But putting that aside, it is looking like MAYBE Democratic leadership wont impeach unless they can get commitment from traitors, uh republicans. That will piss me off, like it is Lawrence O every night this week.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/la ... 8cf693807a


Yes

Quote:
MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell: ‘Donald Trump Will Be, Must Be Impeached’
“Michael Cohen is facing substantial prison time for those same crimes. And Donald Trump is facing, what?”



Notice the board cons have all but completely shut up as proof their entire party are traitors comes out!

_________________
"Corporate Democrat" phrase created at the same place "Angry Mob" was...People keep falling for rightwing talking points. How sad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 1:37 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:27 pm
Posts: 8488
Location: miles from nowhere
Well, I think if he is TOLD he can, he will bomb.

But putting that aside, it is looking like MAYBE Democratic leadership wont impeach unless they can get commitment from traitors, uh republicans. That will piss me off, like it is Lawrence O every night this week.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/la ... 8cf693807a


Yes




Notice the board cons have all but completely shut up as proof their entire party are traitors comes out!

They would have to have commitment because of the senate which you know. ;)

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus

The new motto of the USA: Unum de multis. Out of one, many.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 5:52 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 16884
Yes, none of them would sit still for that.

For instance if the House and Senate really wanted to they could impeach and convict him in one day.


The House and Senate could also all go take a bubble bath together. :roll:

So, if Trump decided to declare a national emergency because "a Democrat DOJ" is trying to take him down...followed the next day with a declaration of martial law, calling out the military, ordering a nation wide curfew and limiting public gatherings not organized by the President to fewer than five people...are you so goddamn sure that a Republican controlled Senate would oppose him?

And to that I say...maybe this is what needs to happen. Maybe it's the only way to either get rid of him right now, or to find out how bad this constitution really is, how bad this country really is...and figure out a nice new place to live.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:02 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19118
So, if Trump decided to declare a national emergency because "a Democrat DOJ" is trying to take him down...followed the next day with a declaration of martial law, calling out the military, ordering a nation wide curfew and limiting public gatherings not organized by the President to fewer than five people...are you so goddamn sure that a Republican controlled Senate would oppose him?


The present and incoming Senate would simply roll over for it, and so would collaboraters like Sam Lefthand.

Nobody wants to be perceived as being uncivil, see.

Vichy mentality.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:47 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 16884

The present and incoming Senate would simply roll over for it, and so would collaboraters like Sam Lefthand.

Nobody wants to be perceived as being uncivil, see.

Vichy mentality.


I see it more as the conversion of the Italian Socialist Party to the National Fascist Party in Italy's "single party democracy" in the 1920's. That mentality.

I have suggested several times that people should read (or listen to the audio book) Albright's "Fascism". Nobody hereabouts seemed much interested. But OK, just one more time...just the first couple or three chapters. Trump isn't Hitler (yet), but his tactics are so similar to Mussolini's that it's downright chilling. The pattern is almost identical including how the existing political parties just rolled over and died behind his populist successes, and their fears of losing their cushy government positions. The next thing the people of Italy knew there was only one political party. All the socialists were suddenly fascists, or liquidated.

It's only a few political steps between what has already happened here and what happened there in the 1920's.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ap215 and 22 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group